Hrothgar Rannúlfr's page

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone.
Much appreciated.

I am not yet comfortable enough with the PF2 rules to do it, but I really feel that truly emulating the AD&D 1st Edition Ranger within PF2 really necessitates creating a Variant Ranger class. To me, it's definitely homebrew territory, at this point.

Why is multi-classing only available via archetypes in PF2?

Why didn't PF2 keep PF1-Style multi-classing?

Thank you.

Leaving Legendary weapon proficiency as something that might be attainable by 7th level for a Barbarian definitely appears to be forward thinking for future releases.

PF2 makes me want to play in Golarion.

Interesting...

I like the idea of just making a human with an ancestry and background, but no class.

From there, could apply the weak or elite modifications and maybe add a thematic ability and the NPC would be done.

I think I like it.

Thank you.

===== ===== =====
"But boy a simple official reference doc would be a godsend!"
— Feral Chihuahua.
===== ===== =====

I concur.

Also, I want to see how to handle converting NPC's with PF1-style multiclassing.

I voted in the poll, a few days ago.

No. Our group won't be switching to PF2E. We have finally houseruled and homebrewed our modified version of PF1E to our liking.

Right now, if I were to switch, it would either be to Castles-n-Crusades or DnD5E. But, won't even do that as I still like PF1 better and can import from those two games and other editions and variants of End, as desired (with a little bit of work).

I may run some PF2E adventures using the Pathfinder Legacy (house ruled) rules set though, if an adventure really captures my interest. But, I have a lot of adventures to run, already, and Rappan Atthuk awaits!

I was trying to figure this out, last night.

I came to the conclusion that without Double Slice, it's just another action to attack with a second weapon with the normal penalty for the second attack (and any other penalties that I don't yet understand).

Of course, that could always have been done in PF1 if your BAB was high enough to grant a second attack.

I have a player that would love to have a hardback Pathfinder Grand Grimoire of PF1E spells.

Honestly, I would buy at least two hardbacks.

The unified proficiency bonus of 5E is ultimately what kept our group from adopting it.

Personally, I loved it and loved the 5E engine, however my players didn't.

I am hoping that there will be some way to differentiate skill between characters. In my opinion, not every rogue should be equally as good as any other rogue of the same level in all things that they are proficient in. And, there should be a way for fighter X to be different from fighter y.

I do trust that Paizo already has something in mind that will fulfill what I'me looking for in this regard. And, I'm looking forward to seeing how they address it.

I'll probably play both...

Our home game is a homebrew of many editions, as it is. PFRPG2E will likely be mined for all that it will offer to enhance our game.

Two of our group have been playing since the 80's and the rest have played since 3.5.

We've got a long running game that is primarily ran under the PF ruleset with other stuff from other editions homebrewed in. It works very well. So, the key question for us regarding PF2E will be concerning how easily it plays with everything else.

Ultimately, as a GM, I have got to love the ruleset in order to make the switch to 2E. Also, the other player that has played since the 80's would have to agree to switch. Without both of us buying in, the switch won't work for the group, since we are the only GMs and if we don't build the characters and prepare the game, the game does not happen.

I do plan to give PF2E a try, though. However, I'm strongly tempted to continue buying all the stuff I still want from PF1E. There are so many adventures and what not that we have not had a chance to play (Strange Aeons and Occult Adventures, for instance).

But, like I said, I've played since the 80's; almost every edition except D&D4E. I don't expect to leave PF2E out as I love Paizo and trust that they will make the game even better, as they did with Pathfinder.

I was around for the first Pathfinder playtest and was overjoyed to see Pathfinder keep 3.5 thriving.

I am excited about Pathfinder 2E.

If it makes the game easier to GM and play while maintaining the versitility of the Pathfinder Legacy ruleset, I will be pleased.

My main regret is that I didn't get to play as much as I would've liked during the past 10 years.

I'm looking forward to the new rules and wish Paizo great success in this endeavor.

They have.

However, I would still like to see the warlock as a core Pathfinder class. It is perhaps my favorite class of 3.5 and 5E. Would love to see a PF2E version.

Thanks, everyone.

We were looking at it as a means to aid in reversing death, if only temporarily, as Anguish suggested.

Also, we were considering a house rule wherein a fortitude save would be required to survive being raised from the dead (similar to the resurrection survival rolls of AD&D). But, the house rule idea is out of scope, here. If Bear's Endurance could have been cast on a corpse, it would have been something that could have boosted chances under such a house rule. But, we wanted to confirm RAW and RAI before investigating that house rule further.

Ultimately, having played variations of the game since the 80's, I think starting at level one is fun.

However, we often modify level one characters to have more hit points, to make them more durable. Usually, 3 times what they'd get under the standard rules (Wiz1 with 12 Con would have 21 HP instead of the usual 7). But, they don't gain additional hit points until their by the book total would exceed what they got at level one. So, usually, no additional hit points for several levels.

This increase to hit points is not shared by all NPC's. It's for PC's and some NPC's.

Looking at older dungeons and dragons materials I see some spells are different from current Pathfinder. Spells like Harm, Slay Living, Implosion, and Disintegrate rather than do some amount of damage have very powerful and scaling effects.

Harm reduced target Hit Point to 1.
Slay Living could kill anything unless they passed a test.
Implosion can crush anyone who fails a save and concentrate to do it each turn for several turns.
Disintegrate could destroy anything that didnt pass a test.

Those are some of the "Save or Die" spells are hear about but they are much more limited in Pathfinder.

Would you allow players to use older and less limited spells? Would you allow NPCs to use them as well?

Primarily, I use Pathfinder as my main source for spells, now.

However, I do allow my players to play classes from other editions of the game and if such classes used spells, then I am willing to consider allowing those spells.

Obviously, there has to be some adjustments, though. Casting times for AD&D spells would make them unusable in combat, for the most part, in Pathfinder because the casting time is measured in segments, making most every spell at least a full-round action to cast or potentially a multi-round action to cast.

But, in general, I encourage the use of Pathfinder as the primary source and if there's a question about how something works, I look to the Pathfinder version, first.

There is a deep dark place in the abyss for people that start these threads.

Mmmm... Probably...

Samasboy1 wrote: "Having one feat give a monster 5 more attacks seems a bit much."

When you put it that way, it really puts it into perspective.

Hi, Sheepish Eidolon,

In looking at the 1st edition of the Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerors of Hyperborea, your solution of banning 7th to 9th level spells seems similar to its solution... 6th level spells are the highest (though it did have a hard level cap of 12th).

Your idea of only using the 7th to 9th level spell slots for metamagic is very interesting.

Thank you.

There's already a way to do Spell Combat with Whirlwind Attack, but you'll also need to take the Combat Stamina feat. When you do, you'll then be able to do this:

Quote:

Whirlwind Attack (Combat): When using this feat, you can spend stamina points to still take bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities. You must spend 5 stamina points per extra attack you take in this way. This combat trick allows you to make extra attacks to which you have access—it doesn't by itself grant extra attacks.

There, problem solved. Spend the feats, Magus!!!! SPEND THE FEATS!! MUHAHAHAHAHA!

*slaps the popcorn out of Ravingdork's hand*

Looks like the combo of spell combat plus whirlwind isn't normally allowed. Otherwise, the way this optional rule is put together doesn't really make sense.

Thank you, Alex Mack and SheepishEidolon.

Pan wrote:

Seems like some folks want a goldilocks edition somewhere just right between PF and 5E. The more I think about it, I start to like the idea.

I believe that's called the Beginner Box.

I agree. And, I really like the Beginner Box.

Great product.

For me, I like Pathfinder 1.0 with all the options offerred in the various books & supplements. I don't use them all, but I might use any of them at some point.

I tried 5e for a while, but now I'm back with PF & 3.5 (with some 5e and 1e thrown in). Not looking for a PF 2.0. At least not one that isn't compatible with PF 1.0.

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

Try this one:

http://www.jessesdnd.com/sites/default/files/EpicPathfinder1.6.pdf

That worked.

It amuses me that you could have a cataclysmic healing spell. I guess if you cast it on an undead, it would make more sense.

I don't know the author of this EpicPathfinder 1.6. Nor, have I played into such levels in Pathfinder or 3.X, but I might take a deeper look at it once our group achieves levels close to 20th.

Thanks!

Try this one:

http://www.jessesdnd.com/sites/default/files/EpicPathfinder1.6.pdf

Yes, Sasquatch did a wonderful job on it.

I'm not sure which world I'll set it in. Probably will be it's own world as described in the book with the possibility to travel to and from other worlds, dimensions, or alternate realities.

The part of the Realms of the Mammoth Lords where megafauna come from (the Earthnavel?) feels kind of Thule-ish, in the 'lost prehistoric lands hidden in the far north' sort of way, to me.

Thank you. I'll have a look at that.

Thule is a fantasy past of Earth (it's Greenland seen with west at the top of the map, and mostly ice-free), so maybe some time- and galaxy-crossing adventures?

Yes, exactly.

I remember the descriptions of one of the Pathfinder Adventure Paths taking the characters to Earth during a World War to fight Rasputin because Rasputin Must Die!

And, with Red Sonja meeting up with the iconics for the Worldscape, why not a Primeval Thule meets Golarion crossover?

Thank you both, Cpt_kirstov and SmiloDan.

I hadn't thought of an underground cavern 'land of the lost' as a place to put it, but that could work.

The cosmology isn't really compatible with Golarion's, as far as I can see, but I'm not really all that knowledgeable or Golarion's pantheons.

Other planets are an idea as are undocumented continents.

I just recently found out about Primeval Thule and I really like the idea of it as a setting. It's bronze age. I think most of Golarion is in a much later era as there are gunslingers and stirrups (no stirrups in Primeval Thule).

Hmmm.... I shall have to think on it a little further, but even if the two settings are on different planets or on alternate worlds from one another, I think it might be neat to have some characters from one occasionally cross over into the other.

Has anyone compared pathfinder and 5e creatures (bestiary entries)? Are they at all inter-compatible?

They're not directly compatible, but I have been tinkering with some homebrew conversion.

5E attack bonuses, saves, and skill difficulty checks are on a different scale than PF/3X. Low-level stuff is close, but the disparity rises the higher things get in level. The highest base attack bonus in 5E is +6 compared to +20 in PF/3X. For Saves, it's +6 in 5E compared to +12 in PF/3X. And skill difficulty checks range somewhat higher in PF/3X than in 5E.

After looking at it and crunching some numbers, I think it'd be easier to convert 3E/PF to 5E than the other direction. That said, I'm waiting to see the 5E Core Rulebooks before doing to much conversion.

Ultimately, I expect our group will convert to 5E for rules but stay with homebrewed conversions of a lot of PF/3X material. Mostly because of the "flatter" math underlying the 5E engine and the fact that we've already have so much PF/3X material.

It's interesting, OmNomNid.

I'm not sure how I'm going to go about this.

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

I'm still hoping for Epic level support for Pathfinder, in the future, but I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on the Mythic rules asap. And, practically salivating over these demon lords' stat blocks!

I've learned to never say never... but at this point, I'm pretty comfortable saying it's very very very very VERY unlikely you'll see us do "Epic level" content that expands the level cap beyond 21st level. Because that sort of expansion to the game would have required a different set of decisions on how to present demigods like demon lords, and now that they're set in stone with Mythic Adventures, the ship to do post 20th level levels has pretty much sailed.

Thank you for the reply, James.

While I'm sad to read that expanded epic rules are that unlikely, it does give me comfort that if I house-rule how it works based on what's given in the CRB (& Mythic), it won't be overruled any time soon.

Basically, I would have a class level cap (so no 21st level fighters), but no character level cap (so a 15th level fighter, 10th level cleric would be possible). BAB would probably be capped at a max of +20 and base saves at a max of +12.

Can't wait to get a look at one of the demon lord stat blocks!

Actually, the commoner railgun comments have reminded me of something. And this applies to the OP's dissection of Point Blank Shot as well:

The time you have spent considering this would be far better spent preparing the next session for your players, or failing that, actually playing the game.

Truer words may never have been written about this game!

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

In order to take your position out of the absurd you have had to modify it so that you 'may' choose before the attack. I also chose my rebuttal to your view to take into account this modified position.

I'm really trying to represent your camp's views fairly. I simply illustrated that it evolved from a simple statement (which leads to absurd consequences) to one which involves an option to choose before the first attack.

Now THAT is a fair criticism! I'm assuming that this 'modified' view, not the original statement, is the view you guys hold, and is the view that I'm criticising.

Hi, Malachi.

The part about being a feat allowing an exception to the rule was important to me. The basic rule is that you normally choose whether or not to make a full attack after your first attack. However, the feat requires an exception to that rule because you can only fire two arrows with your first shot when making a full-attack. So, you're already full-attacking. Not decision is necessary after the first attack. And, movement (other than possibly a 5' step) is impossible, because you cannot move during a full-attack (except, possibly, a 5' step).

If you haven't committed to the full-attack, your first shot only fires one arrow.

I like this guy. He reads the rules without bias even if it does cause him to change sides. :)

Thanks! I'm more interested in learning the rules than in wanting to win an argument.

You have to use a full-round action to get you're additional attacks.

So, by default, you're already using a full-attack on you're first attack. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to take a move action, instead of your remaining attacks. You wouldn't have any attacks remaining if you weren't using a full-round action.

Can Vital Strike be used to increase damage during a sunder attempt?

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

...

...

Wraithstrike,

You may have missed it, but I've come to the conclusion (with the help of Gauss and Moglun) that I was mistaking James Jacobs' house-rule for Rapid Shot as RAW and then trying to apply that to Manyshot as RAW.

My apologies for taking so long to realize that.

Eldritch blast was changed in 3.5 errata to make it always equal to a 1st level spell. Only if you applied a higher level blast shape or eldritch essence invocation did it actually become a higher level. If eldritch blast increased as originally written, then then it could never be affected by the meta-spell-like ability feats (i.e. Empower Spell-Like Ability, Maximize Spell-Like Ability, Quicken Spell-Like Ability, etc.).

A lesser globe of invulnerability will completely and totally stop a plain-jane vanilla eldritch blast invoked by 20th-level Warlock.

MA

Very true (to both the necessity of the eratta and the plain-jane blast from the warlock 20 v. the globe). But, why stick with plain-jane if the higher level invocations are just as easy to use?

I think the point he is trying to make is that eldritch blast, the iconic ability of the warlock pretty much gets locked out once you start hitting levels where lesser globe becomes commonplace. Now that being said I'm sure it could be treated as a higher level spell as the character moves up the ranks.

You're right.

However, a warlock isn't limited to only eldritch blast. Beshadowed blast, for example would bypass the globe, deal edritch blast damage, and possibly blind the target. Voracious dispelling would destroy the globe and damage the one using the globe.

Then, there's the higher level blast shapes and essences along with the fact that most casters could only create a lesser globe for a few minutes per day.

widdershins wrote:

Do the two sides connect? If you bought two of these and flipped one over could they be placed side by side without any apparent joins? It looks like it's designed to do this but the sample images shown don't seem to align.

They don't line up that way (would have been a good idea, though...)

Vic,

Please let the rest of the folks at Paizo know that I'd really be interested in a series of 10 or 12 (maybe more) Dungeon Geomorph flip mats. Flip mats that would fit together no matter which way I turned them that could be put together to make random dungeons.